MMandM

What cute pets. You know when I found Dewey the Vet told me he was very malnourished. You could feel and see his bones. To this day this cat hasn

Thanks, he was very entertaining when he was little, still is at times

First of all I've never been a cat person, then one day I was walking in a parking lot to my car and this little skinny kitten came walking up to me. He was a little kitten barely 6 weeks old. I took him home and had plans on finding a home for him. The first night I had he home he became very ill. The next day I took him into see a vet, the kitten had some virus infection and the vet said he had a 50/50 chance of surviving. I had to give him medication 4 times a day for a full week. After that I became attached to the little bugger, well he's almost two years old now, weighs 18lbs and his name is Dewey.

Today was actually a very rough day at work, Arbitration can be very stressful. But today I looked in the mirror and saw a weary person. I saw the same weary face I see everyday, looking at least 10 years older than I actually am, and I don't like it very much. I only look in mirrors when I have to shave. It's too depressing otherwise. (Did I see a fleeting reflection of my father?) Oh well And you? What do you see in the mirror?

Well I

Today I am procrastating about everything. It

Thanks for all the nice comments. We are seeing each other again tonight but this time staying in. I

Thank you Viv, you are a very beautiful woman and you have a beautiful smile that lights up the entire forum. :ranger:

On a forum like GA, often people feel free to discuss delicate personal topics about various kinds of relationships and life situations. In most cases, I have found the advice offered to members to be well thought out, empathic, and compassionate. Occasionally, I have checked out other forums and have seen some mean spirited responses to a sensitive problem. Rather than being helpful, apparently the response was calculated to be mean spirited and cruel, IMO. I believe one of the great strengths of this forum is that members are able to "bare our souls" to other mature adults, with the expectation that your feelings are treated with respect. We have all gone through personal dilemmas, and the more mature and compassionate amongst us realize that there is no "one size fits all" answer to a problem. One of the things that separate GA from many other forums I have visited is the mature, thoughtful compassion and empathy that is demonstrated by the vast majority of its members. As my grandfather used to say "you've got to know how to separate the sugar from the salt." Well that's all I have to say. For now anyway

I agree, nice to see everyone!

Thank you Krista. We did have a good time and I was happy he didn

We actually had a good time. Went to see a musical in Long Beach called The Alter Boys, and then went out for sushi.

Thank you Krista, well I might be a little nervous when he shows up in 20 minutes lol. But I am kind of looking forward to it

Tonight will be my first date in three years. He

I can admit I do have that problem with one of the Dell laptops I have. The one I have at home I have to place a small book under it so it doesn

I just realized that I almost never do anything on impulse. I'm such a creature of habit. Damn, it, I have to start being more spontaneous What about you? Are you a creature of habit or do you just do anything on impulse, having always been Roman Catholic I am very familiar with habits.

Why should someone donate blood to an organization that doesn't value you and thinks an entire group of people has a terminal disease? What about heterosexual

Excellent James There is a lot of truth to that statement. Due process protects the accused against conviction except upon proof beyond a reasonable doubt of EVERY FACT NECESSARY to constitute the crime with which the accused is charged. The government must prove the essential elements of the crime charged. The essential elements of the crime of attempt are 1) specific intent to commit the underlying substantive crime, and 2) overt act. The critical overt act element must be proved beyond a reasonable doubt. EVIDENCE of the overt act must be sufficient to prove (to allow a rational jury to conclude) that the accused engaged in CONDUCT "very near to the accomplishment" of the attempted offense. People v. Rizzo, 246 N.Y. 334, 158 N.E. 888, 889 (N.Y. 1929). The law of criminal attempt "considers those acts only as tending to the commission of the crime which are so near to its accomplishment that in all reasonable PROBABILITY the crime itself would have been committed but for timely interference. Under Rule 401, Federal Rules of EVIDENCE, ""Relevant evidence" means evidence having any tendency to make the existence of any fact that is of consequence to the determination of the action more probable or less probable than it would be without the evidence. Rule 402 provides, "All relevant evidence is admissible, except as otherwise provided by the Constitution of the United States, by Act of Congress, by these rules, or by other rules prescribed by the Supreme Court pursuant to statutory authority. Evidence which is not relevant is not admissible." Certainly, in a prosecution for the crime of attempt, any evidence that shows that the Defendant's conduct did or did not come dangerously close to the accomplishment of the attempted offense is relevant and admissible. There is no existing ACT of CONGRESS or Supreme Court rule that makes evidence of "impossibility" inadmissible to demonstrate the probable existence or nonexistence of an essential element of a crime (e.g., the critical overt act element of the crime of attempt). Although some claim "impossibility" has been "thoroughly discredited" as a defense, you cannot deny that evidence of "impossibility" is relevant and admissible if the evidence tends to make the existence of a essential fact (element) of a crime less probable. In defining crimes, Congress often uses the word "endeavor" in place of the word "attempt." Although the Supreme Court previously failed to apprehend that the two words are synonymous when it said in dicta that using the word "endeavor" gets rid of the technicalities which might be urged as besetting the word "attempt," U.S. v. Russell, 255 U.S. 138 (1921), no substitution of a word in a statute can evade the essential purpose of the law to regulate and punish wrongful CONDUCT. Accordingly, the Court later noted that an "endeavor" to commit a crime cannot be punished unless the endeavor has the "natural and probable effect" of bringing about the wrong that the law seeks to prohibit. United States v. Aguilar, 515 U.S. 593 (1995). Citation of authority; In United States v. Aguilar, the defendant was convicted of endeavoring to obstruct the due administration of justice. The Court examined the relevant evidence admitted at trial to determine whether the evidence was sufficient to sustain the conviction. The Court, citing Pettibone v. United States, 148 U.S. 197 (1893) stated, "a person is not sufficiently charged with obstructing or impeding the due administration of justice in a court UNLESS it appears that he KNEW or had notice that justice was being administered by such court." A person lacking knowledge of a judicial proceeding lacks the evil intent to obstruct. Accordingly, the elements of "endeavoring" to obstruct the due administration of justice are 1) specific intent to obstruct a pending proceeding, and 2) an overt act that has the "natural and probable effect" of obstructing a pending proceeding. The court stated; "We have traditionally exercised RESTRAINT in assessing the REACH of a federal criminal statute, both out of deference to Congress [citation omitted], and out of concern that 'a fair warning should be given to the world in language that the common world will understand, of what the law intends to do IF A CERTAIN LINE is passed.'" [Note: At common law, evidence of mere preparation to commit a crime was insufficient as a matter of law to constitute a criminal attempt. The CERTAIN LINE, where criminality would attach, was drawn at the point where the conduct came dangerously close to the commission of the actual crime.] In Aguilar, the Court considered conduct that falls before or after that CERTAIN LINE. If the defendant had delivered his false statement directly to the grand jury, then he would be criminally liable for endeavoring to obstruct justice. However, defendant's conduct fell short of that CERTAIN LINE. Defendant delivered his false statement to a government agent who was not subpoenaed or otherwise directed to appear before the grand jury. It is far too speculative to determine whether his conduct would tend to obstruct justice. The Court stated, "We think it [defendant's conduct] cannot be said to have the 'natural and probable effect' of interfering with the due administration of justice. In response to Scalia's dissent, the Court said: "JUSTICE SCALIA'S dissent criticizes our treatment of the statutory language for reading the word 'endeavor' out of it, inasmuch as it excludes defendants who have an evil purpose but use means that would 'only unnaturally and improbably be sucessful.' This criticism is unwarranted. Our reading of the statute gives the term 'endeavor' a useful function to fulfill: it makes conduct punishable where the defendant acts with an INTENT TO OBSTRUCT justice, in in a manner that is LIKELY TO OBSTRUCT justice, but is foiled in some way." In other words, the essential overt act element of the crime of "endeavor" (like the overt act element of the crime of attempt) must be an act that will LIKELY (naturally and probably) be successful (e.g., come dangerously close to the actual commission of the prohibited wrong) unless it is foiled in some way. Accordingly, unless the accused KNOWS that an actual pending proceeding--and unless the accused KNOWS that his false statements will in fact be delivered to an actual pending proceeding--it is improbable (impossible) for him to endeavor to obstruct the due administration of justice, and THUS, he is NOT CULPABLE. I find the Aguilar case to be a PARADOX in many respects--and worthy of considerable discussion--but in final analysis, the fact remains that no matter how hard the legislature or the courts work to GET RID of the "technicalities" that allegedly plague the law of criminal attempt--those "technicalities" were developed at common law for a reason. Fundamental due process and the prohibition against cruel and unusual punishments does not allow the law to penalize an individual's thoughts or beliefs (or status) no matter how morally reprehensible those thoughts or beliefs (or status) may be. The law may only constitutionally prohibit and penalize harmful conduct--and conduct that has no likelihood of causing the harm that the law seeks to prohibit is NOT CULPABLE. Accordingly, due to fundamental constitutional principles, the PROBABILTY or IMPROBABILITY (and thus POSSIBILITY and IMPOSSIBILITY) of success in committing the intended crime will ALWAYS be admissible evidence that is relevant to the culpability of the accused actor's CONDUCT with respect to the inchoate crime of attempt (and the synonymous inchoate crime of endeavor). The Supreme Court is the final say and the Constitution will always rein supreme.

I purchased a couple of Dell Inspiron lap tops. One for home and one for the office. I've had them both for three years now and haven't had a problem with either. Here is a link to their site. http://www.dell.com/content/products/categ...;l=en&s=dhs

My avatar is my son Justin who was killed by a drunk driver. It will be three years this June 13th. The drunk driver was my ex-wife who had a few cocktails at home but had promised to take Justin to the local dairy queen for an ice cream; just two miles down the street, she ran a stop sign and was broad sided by an SUV. She was convicted of vehicular manslaughter and driving under the influence and was only sentenced to three years.

For the most part, all of us have chosen an avatar to pictorially represent us on this site. Why did you pick the avatar, which you now have? Is there any psychological significance to your choice of an avatar? Was your choice really only made in good fun, or is there some secret meaning to your choice? Psychologists frequently tell us, that we as humans, are what we wear on our bodies. Are you what your avatar portrays on your computer screen?

Boy you guys bring up some pretty good points. Prosecutors are responsible for charging the appropriate crime. However, prosecutors routinely stack the deck in their favor by charging both criminal attempt and attempted enticement. The time is long overdue for prosecutors to be held accountable for their misuse of law. Criminal attempt is a specific intent crime. It requires the defendant to specifically intend to commit a particular crime and he must purposefully/intentionally engage in conduct that constitutes a substantial step toward the commission of the crime. A substantial step goes beyond mere preparation and is suitable for the purpose of committing the intended crime, but fails to result in the commission of the intended crime. I will acknowledge that "attempted attempt" crimes are being formulated to create a broad and sweeping net to capture Internet predators of children, and while the ends are legitimate, the means used are constitutionally suspect. Congress has the power to regulate the channels of interstate commerce. When looking at the federal statute that substantially defines a crime as follows: Whoever-- 1. Using a means of interstate commerce 2. Knowingly 3. solicits 4. any minor 5. to engage in illegal sexual activity shall be fined and/or imprisoned. Solicitation of another to engage in criminal activity is only prepatory to the crime and not an overt act, which would support a conviction for attempt. To call solicitation an attempt is to delete the overt act element necessary for an attempt. Therefore, solicitation alone can never serve as a basis for attempted sexual abuse of a minor. It is too far attenuated, it lacks the substantial step necessary to constitute an attempt. At best, solicitation is in the nature of an attempt because the intent is there, but the overt act is missing. Attempted solicitation or enticement would then be yet another step removed from the actual harm that the law seeks to prevent. At best, it is an attempt to commit a crime in the nature of an attempt. Many courts have ruled that there is no such crime as an attempt to commit an attempt or an attempt to commit a crime that is in the nature of an attempt. Punishing an individual's beliefs (or erroneous beliefs) or evil intent rather than his culpable conduct is just as reprehensible under our Constitution as punishing status rather than culpable conduct. Read commonwealth vs. Jerry Hamel; http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getc...913&invol=1 Another case discussing the MPC's focus on the actor's mind: http://www.courts.state.ny.us/reporter/arc...s/p_dlugash.htm A review of the decision and the law of criminal attempt discloses several constitutional defects in the prosecution of the defendant in this case. Strong arguments can be made that: 1) The statute is constitutionally void for vagueness because it fails to provide notice of the elements of the crime of attempt and because it fails to provide courts with clearly defined standards for applying the law. 2) The federal court, in adopting the Model Penal Code (MPC) definition of criminal attempt, violated the constitutional separation of powers doctrine and usurped the power of the legislative branch to define crimes. The people of this country did not elect the American Law Institute (ALI) or the drafters of the MPC to make public policy decisions and to define crimes. The legislative branch's power to define crimes (to set forth the essential elements that constitute a crime) reflects the public policy decisions of our elected representatives in Congress and this power/duty cannot be delegated to the ALI or the judicial branch. 3) If the common law definition of the crime of attempt is applied to this case, than the MPC definition then the evidence was insufficient as a matter of law to prove the overt act (CONDUCT) element of the offense. It cannot be proved that the defendant's conduct came dangerously close to the commission of the actual crime. The bottom line in this case is if there is no act there is no crime, the culpable conduct is being diluted to the point where we are no longer trying to prevent or punish crime, rather, we are punishing the mere possession of an evil mind.

The practice has become widespread undercover agents pose as children on Internet chat rooms. When adults strike up online relationships and arrange for sexual liaisons, police are waiting at the rendezvous point with handcuffs and arrest warrants. But a ruling of a federal court judge in Ca is calling the legality of the tactic into question. The U.S. District Judge acquitted a man last week of using the Internet to try to entice a child into sex. The man's attorney, had argued that his client didn't break federal law because the person his client was accused of enticing wasn't a minor but a County deputy pretending to be a minor. The ruling came just minutes after a jury returned a guilty verdict. The defendant had faced a sentence of five to 30 years. The Judge reversed the jury's decision not withstanding the verdict. Is anyone bothered by this kind of sting? I'll post my opinion later.

I have a fatal flaw: I constantly torture myself by putting off till tomorrow what I SHOULD be doing today! Occasionally I read about a group called the Procrastinators of America (I think it is). I would be the perfect candidate for that group, but I keep putting off joining. Happy Saturday, now all things can wait until Monday!